Whatcom County Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee

**Treasurer Steve Oliver, on the need for budget decisions:** "We're really at a point where we need to kind of pick a number in regards to the level of capital expenditures that we think that we can comfortably take on." **Deputy Executive Shot Wrestler, on concurrent facility construction:** "The jail is something we are required to do and the behavioral care center is something we are choosing to do here locally." **Council Member Ben Elenbaas, on total project approach:** "I am more worried about what our total budget is going to be than just like what the jail is going to cost and what the behavioral health is going to cost because I want an outcome and I want to be able to implement our plan." **Council Member Kaylee Galloway, on budget comfort level:** "I support setting a budget cap that includes both the BCC and the jail build concurrently." **Council Member John Scanlon, on future expansion concerns:** "The cities if they choose to could just continue to push and push and

**Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-CJS-2026-03-24 ## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee convened on Tuesday, March 24th, 2026, at 11:21 AM in Council Chambers for a hybrid meeting. All seven council members were present: Elizabeth Boyle, Barry Buchanan, Ben Elenbaas, Kaylee Galloway, Jessica Rienstra, Jon Scanlon, and Mark Stremler. The meeting was called to order by Chair Barry Buchanan, and the session was focused entirely on one critical agenda item: an update from the Executive's Office on the Justice Project process, financial outlook, and timeline for delivery of additional reports. This was a pivotal meeting in the ongoing Justice Project deliberations, with county officials attempting to provide clarity on budget parameters, facility programming, and decision-making timelines as the project moves through what Deputy Executive Shot Wrestler described as a "validation phase." The Justice Project encompasses both a new county jail and a Behavioral Care Center, representing one of the most significant capital investments in Whatcom County's history. ## The Justice Project Update — Setting Budget Caps and Moving Forward Deputy Executive Shot Wrestler began the presentation with an acknowledgment of the extensive community engagement that has characterized the Justice Project process. "It feels like every other day I'm in a discussion around this project," Wrestler said. "And so it's really good to see how active the community is. I certainly feel like no one can say they're gonna be able to, they've missed the opportunity to weigh in or that they didn't know these decisions were occurring this spring." The deputy executive outlined several advisory groups continuing to provide input: the Finance and Facility Advisory Board, the IPRTF (Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force), J-POP (Justice Project Oversight Panel), and the JAW (Justice Advisory Workgroup). While no formal recommendations have emerged from these committees, Wrestler noted they are "certainly informing our work as we proceed during this validation phase." A significant development was the March 16th letter from Whatcom County city mayors, attached to the agenda bill, expressing willingness to extend their financial contributions to the project through 2035. This letter would prove crucial to the budget discussions that followed. ### Behavioral Care Center — Concurrent Development and Funding Updates Wrestler emphasized the executive's commitment to building the Behavioral Care Center concurrently with the new jail, describing it as "something we are choosing to do here locally" while the jail is "something we are required to do." The behavioral care center represents a 32-bed inpatient treatment facility designed to provide an alternative to incarceration for individuals with mental health and substance use disorders. A major financial development was the increased flexibility of existing state funding. "Our existing state allocation for the 23-hour Crisis Relief Center has been made more flexible and that $11.2 million can now be applied towards Behavioral Care Center capital costs," Wrestler announced. This represented a significant win for the county's lobbying efforts. Council Member Buchanan questioned why the state funding amount appeared to have decreased from a previously mentioned $14 million figure. Wrestler clarified: "We have 11.25 from the state. It was an 11.3 award and I believe $50,000 gets taken off for a management fee from the Department of Commerce. And then there's $3 million of local funding that's contributed by Whatcom County and the city of Bellingham. In addition to that, which is getting that $14 million." ### Jail Facility Values and Operational Priorities Wrestler outlined the executive's approach to jail facility planning, emphasizing improved access to services including "medical care and observation, behavioral health treatment, recreation, programming, modern design, and more." The deputy executive stressed that "data should guide project decisions on facility capacity, housing configuration, and specialized housing priorities" and that they should "honor our feedback from law enforcement agencies and cities." The philosophy of "building with the future in mind" was emphasized, with Wrestler acknowledging that this "has the potential to increase initial capital costs, but that we will thank ourselves later for those decisions." ## The Critical Reports — Behavioral Health Analysis and Jail Capacity Study Two major analytical reports were nearing completion. The behavioral health analysis, conducted by Aaron Persky and Associates, was delivered to the executive's office the morning of the meeting and was expected to be released publicly within a week. This report examines the service model for the behavioral care center, target populations, potential diversionary impacts, staffing models, cost estimates, and insurance reimbursement expectations. The jail capacity analysis was described as complete and ready for public release later that week. Wrestler noted this study "provides high level results that are largely aligned with the 2025 capacity study with multiple variables impacting capacity needs for the justice facility." However, the new study offers "more insights on potential impacts of diversion on jail capacity and also provides more data related to the type of charges and how that's impacting the population within the jail." Importantly, Wrestler clarified how this capacity study would be used in the design process: "The design build team is going to take this report and the projections, and they're going to inform the housing needs during the programming phase of the project. They are not going to say, hey, I read this report. It's recommending a bed count of this number or a capacity of this number, and directly translate that into the design." ## Financial Framework — The $225 Million Question The meeting's most significant discussion centered on establishing budget parameters. Jed Holmes, Public Affairs and Strategy Manager, provided an update on financial modeling work conducted with County Treasurer Steve Oliver and bond consultant PFM. Holmes noted the volatility in recent sales tax revenues: "Recent sales tax revenues have been all over the place, had great December revenues, January revenues were down." This volatility was creating anxiety about long-term revenue projections essential for debt planning. The preliminary budget cap under discussion was $225 million total — $205 million for the jail and $20 million for the behavioral care center. This ceiling was contingent on city agreement to extend their contributions through 2035, which could provide an additional $23-24 million to the project. Council Member Elenbaas sought clarification on the cities' financial commitment: "When you say they're willing to go out to 2035, how much of the total budget is that?" Holmes responded that extending city contributions at 75% of their collections for another five years would provide "in the realm, maybe an additional 23, $24 million to the project." ## The Treasurer's Perspective — Conservative Planning and Risk Management County Treasurer Steve Oliver provided the meeting's most direct assessment of the financial realities. "We're really at a point where we need to kind of pick a number in regards to the level of capital expenditures that we think that we can comfortably take on," Oliver said. The treasurer emphasized that setting a budget cap would help move the design process forward while also clarifying "what dollars are gonna be left for the community-based services piece of this project, which I think are probably, you know, just as important as actually constructing the jail itself." Oliver stressed the need for conservative planning given cost escalation concerns: "We all know that, you know, over, you know, however many years you want to look back, I mean, the, you know, the cost escalation of this project has been substantial." However, the treasurer also provided reassurance about the evolving nature of financial planning: "Even if there's a number that's chosen in the next few weeks, and then we find new state or federal money to help augment pieces of this project, the economy could go one way or the other way, you know, we're going to continue that modeling as we move down the road." When Council Member Elenbaas asked for a simplified explanation of borrowing capacity, comparing it to a home mortgage pre-approval, the treasurer confirmed that a $225 million capital budget "would certainly be living within our means." Holmes provided a helpful benchmark: "There's a pretty easy benchmark if if you could handle $6 million on let's say 6.3 in debt service you can borrow about 100 million so scale that up if you're around 12 you can almost get 200." ## Council Member Responses — Alignment and Concerns ### Support for Concurrent Development Council Member Galloway expressed support for the overall direction: "I support uh setting a budget cap that includes both the BCC and the jail build concurrently. I appreciate the city's willingness to extend their contributions to help us raise that cap." However, Galloway emphasized the need for conservative revenue projections: "I think we should be planning for a zero to 1% growth rather than three or more percent growth." She added that "plus or minus 200 million for the jail, plus or minus 20 to 25 for the behavioral care center seems like we have a good start." ### Capacity and Interlocal Agreement Concerns Council Member Scanlon raised important questions about the relationship between capacity planning and the interlocal agreement with cities. He expressed concern about provisions that could require jail expansion if capacity limits are reached: "If we reach capacity um for so long over so many periods so much time um the cities can then push the county to expand the jail which add costs us down the road." Scanlon worried about the open-ended nature of these requirements: "The cities if they choose to could just continue to push and push and push um to expand down the road um and to me I I I feel like we need some type of upper limit there um and currently it's not defined and I think that that puts County finances at risk." ### Understanding Operational Changes Scanlon also pressed for more information about how policing practices might change once a new jail opens: "I am interested in knowing. I think the community ought to know as well. You know, an opening day of a new jail or a few years down the road, what might look different? You know, which of the charges that they're maybe issuing citations on now for fines rather than um you know bringing someone in to have them booked and potentially end up in jail." This question highlighted ongoing uncertainty about how booking restrictions currently affecting law enforcement operations might change with expanded jail capacity. ### Conservative Revenue Assumptions Council Member Scanlon reinforced concerns about sales tax projections, noting that "folks who manage that fund at the programmatic level say their assumption is 0 to 1% growth for that fund." He referenced the county's Q4 financial report as evidence of ongoing "struggles with sales tax revenue." ## Facility Integration and Service Coordination Council Member Stremler asked about operational costs for the behavioral care center beyond Medicaid reimbursements, but Wrestler indicated that information would be available in the forthcoming behavioral health analysis. Stremler also sought clarity on how the new facility would relate to existing services: "How does the Ann Deacon Center and that facility there fit into the picture when the new care center is built?" Wrestler explained the different levels of care: The behavioral care center would provide "inpatient treatment" with stays of "30, 60, 90 days" for mental health disorders, substance use disorders, or co-occurring disorders. The Ann Deacon Center of Hope serves different populations — half providing medical detox services and half operating as a crisis stabilization unit with shorter lengths of stay. "We're imagining referrals and linkages between these facilities," Wrestler said, noting that co-location of different service types "has been seen as an advantageous plan" in other jurisdictions. ## Timeline Pressures and Information Needs As the meeting concluded, Chair Buchanan pressed for specific timelines on the critical reports council members need for decision-making. Wrestler provided concrete dates: "You'll have the jail capacity analysis by the end of this week you'll have the majority of the Behavioral Health analysis um by the end of next week." Council Member Galloway acknowledged the executive's desire for timely decisions while emphasizing the need for adequate information: "I would just hope that council members could be very clear with the executive's office on what other information is needed to make this decision, because they do believe that making this decision sooner than later is gonna be important to keep this project on time and hopefully under budget." ## Closing Thoughts — Interconnected Systems and Voter Commitments Council Member Rienstra concluded the substantive discussion by emphasizing the interconnected nature of the facilities: "I just keep hearing at times kind of the jail and behavioral health, like on opposite ends of the spectrum, but I'm encouraged to kind of hear the conversation move forward where we are all seemingly recognizing that they are interconnected and neither are optional." She referenced previous legislative work, noting that county ordinances and resolutions had established that "responsible stewardship of public funds, ensuring public safety and providing adequate countywide behavioral health services" are "inextricably linked" and "not oppositional polls." The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:43 AM, with council members heading to lunch before returning for a 1:30 PM Committee of the Whole meeting. As they filed out, there was brief discussion about the broader tax burden on residents, with one council member noting that "the more taxes we pull out of people's budgets" affects spending on "taxable items." ## What's Ahead — Decision Points and Community Impact This meeting represented a crucial moment in the Justice Project timeline, with county officials attempting to provide the analytical foundation and financial parameters necessary for final decision-making. The $225 million budget cap discussion, while preliminary, represents the clearest indication yet of the project's likely scope and cost. The forthcoming reports — the behavioral health analysis and jail capacity study — will provide the data foundation council members have been seeking. However, questions remain about how booking restriction policies might change, what operational costs will look like, and how to balance competing priorities within constrained budgets. The project's complexity is evident in the number of moving parts: state and federal funding opportunities, city contribution agreements, operational planning for both facilities, community-based services integration, and the ongoing challenge of making decisions with incomplete information while construction costs continue to escalate. With an "arbitrary deadline of end of April for a decision" looming, as Council Member Galloway characterized it, the county faces the challenge of making one of its largest capital investments ever while balancing fiscal responsibility, public safety needs, and voter commitments to both incarceration alternatives and jail modernization.